White House Press Secretary Dana Perino admits that she is not cut out for hard hitting journalism in this clip from Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace today. No kidding.
Even more remarkable is that Perino reached this conclusion when she found herself unable to interview the mother of a child murder victim. Yet, Perino seemingly has no problem whatsoever defending the man responsible for the deaths of thousands of children on a daily basis. WOW!
This is an extraordinary exchange, on many levels, between Bill O'Reilly and Karl Rove. For starters, Bill-o doesn't seem to know or at least pretends not to know, who Don Siegelman is. Introducing the segment, O'Reilly looks down at his notes and struggles to come up with Siegelman's name, and even calls him "Donald" which I have never heard any media personality use to refer to the former Alabama Governor. It would be quite remarkable if O'Reilly was truly unfamiliar with the Siegelman case. More likely O'Reilly was intentionally attempting to minimize the significance of the Siegelman case in an effort to make Rove's failure to appear before the House Judiciary committee appear more reasonable.
Next, O'Reilly clearly doesn't believe in oversight. At least during Republican administrations. House subcommittees are seemingly valueless, according to O'Reilly, since their purpose is merely to be a "dog and pony show" that tries to embarrass witnesses.
Meanwhile, O'Reilly claims that no one in their right mind would want to appear before a House committee. But the fact of the matter is that most witnesses voluntarily testify before House committees because they have information that might be helpful to our government and country. In right wing parlance, one could argue that it is often the patriotic thing to do.
O'Reilly then makes some kind of straw-man argument claiming that "they wouldn't" testify before a House subcommittee without identifying who is the "they" he is referring to. He goes on to say that "they" wouldn't even appear on his show before calling them "pinheads". Maybe O'Reilly is speaking about the TV critics or maybe he has the House committee in mind (Democrats only one supposes). Undoubtedly O'Reilly's audience understands "they" and "pinheads" to be code words for SP's (secular progressives), Democrats and the looney left.
Rove's answer is equally problematic. Note that Rove claims that the White House has invoked executive privilege which prevents him from testifying before the House committee but that he has also indicated "five times" that he would be willing to answer the same questions from House members, either by meeting with them or in writing. Thus, presumably the White House is not worried about Rove answering questions from Congress, but only answering questions under oath. Could anything be more absurd?
The transcript...
Bill O'Reilly: [TV critics] gave you a hard time about not wanting to go testify in front of a House subcommittee about Don, Donald Siegelman (looking at notes), you know. Now who in their right mind, and this is a non-partisan thing, who in their right mind would want to go in to a House committee - which is just a dog and pony show trying to embarrass whoever it is, you, me, whoever has to go - who in their right mind would want to do that? They wouldn't. They won't come on this program most of these pinheads, okay. So they give you a hard time about that and I guess they are giving you a hard time because you worked at the Bush administration and now you work at FNC.
Karl Rove: Yeah, well on the first one you know, well, in a lot of them the questions were polite but they were clearly ill-informed. They said why do you refuse to testify. I said look, I've not invoked any privilege. The White House has invoked an executive privilege - the Constitutional authority of the President not to have his aides drawn up to the Hill for any reason that they want. And I've said but I have been five times offered through my lawyer to meet with Democrat members, Democrat staff, Republican members, Republican staff or answer in writing questions that they may want to submit about this in order to preserve the President's prerogatives - separation of powers - while at the same time giving them information they supposedly want and not foreclosing any option.
O'Reilly: Yeah, but you know they don't want that.
Rove: Sure they don't. They want a circus.
O'Reilly: They want to get you up there and mock you and the TV critics want to see you disparaged.
Rove: Sure. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly.
O'Reilly: Now why in your opinion - I'm in journalism 35 years, you are in politics, I guess, about the same time - why is the print media particularly so left wing in this country in your opinion?
But the hits stopped coming because the link to the Snow video was suddenly pulled and I want to know why. I'm no expert about Wikipedia but would be much obliged if someone who understands the machinations of the site could investigate the matter. It seems to me that the unique video is newsworthy and helpful to understanding Snow. Incidentally, I reposted the link at 12:12 p.m. but that one was pulled as well.
The video which was clearly found offensive by some Wikipedia member follows...
Sean Hannity: "The news today brings a clear foreign policy victory for the Bush administration. But will the press report it that way?"
John Bolton: "I think it's actually a clear victory for North Korea... demonstrating again that they can out-negotiate the US without raising a sweat."
Sean Hannity: "Boy, I tell you, they've done it time and time again, and I'm sorta perplexed, Mr. Ambassador, to understand why we keep going back to the well knowing that they haven't kept the agreements in the past. Whatever happend to Reagan's trust but verify?"
Michelle Obama guest hosts on The View and, gasp, fist bumps Whoopi, Joy, Elisabeth, Sherri and Barbara. For those not in the know, Fox “News” has suggested that the Obama fist bump might be a “terrorist fist jab”.
By now almost everyone has seen the viral video of Bill Moyers destroying O'Reilly Factor producer, Porter Barry, after being ambushed at the The National Conference for Media Reform. If not, it follows below. But first check out Bill O'Reilly's lame attempt to get back at Moyers via the ridiculous "Body Language" segment.
Saw former Fox “News” anchor Tony Snow speak last night. While Snow spent most of the night shoveling typical right wing propaganda he did manage to say at least one truthful thing about his former news channel which leaves little question about whether it's “fair and balanced”.
In the must see video above, The Daily Show's “John Oliver shoots his own documentary spotlighting FOX 'News' and its history of journalistic integrity”. I only wish Oliver had given me a hat tip or a shout out for covering much of the same in the video mashup below I titled, “Hard Hitting”:
And for even more video mashups and commentary on the absurd Fox “News” Bush special, “Fighting To The Finish”, see my earlier post.
According to the crazy Christian lady (aka Shirley Phelps Roper) from the Westboro Baptist Church whom I spoke with outside of the Academy Awards a few weeks back, Heath Ledger is going to hell.
It's unfortunate that our conversation was cut short by a heavy rain because I wanted to ask her why she thought Hannity & Colmes had her on Fox “News” so often (see one of her many appearances below). The answer, of course, is that it is the job of Fox “News” to scare the dickens (borrowing an expression from Pastor John Hagee) out of Middle America and few do it as well as the “God Hates Fags” church.
HERO ALERT: This guy is great and deserves major props. And it should be a lesson for everyone with any self-respect on how to conduct themselves on Fox "News".
Last night Fox 'News' aired a special hosted by Bret Baier, George W. Bush: Fighting to the Finish, that was an impressive piece of propaganda even by Fox's lofty standards. In order to make watching it a bit more palatable, I've made a couple of mashups addressing different aspects of the hour long program.
The first video covers the “unprecedented access” Fox 'News' was given to Bush. As Baier writes over at foxnews.com:
I’ve really enjoyed working on this program. For starters, the footage you will see in this hour is historic and fascinating. We were given access to the president at his ranch in Texas, in the Oval Office during meetings, aboard Air Force One during his historic trip to the Mideast and in the White House residence that is rarely seen.
Unprecedented Access...
In the second mashup I've edited together many of Bret Baier's questions and transitional comments in order to highlight the extent of the propaganda. Hopefully you will find it as interesting as Baier finds his own work:
I think, as someone who covers the White House everyday, it’s extremely interesting — and is definitely worth watching.
Hard Hitting...
Victory, The PDB, Osama, Bush's Joyousness and more......
Karl Rove is the ultimate partisan operative who guided a career underachiever with a checkered past to the White House. He is credited with keeping the 2000 election close enough, through dirty campaigning and still dirtier election engineering and fraud, to allow the Supreme Court to step in and gift wrap the presidency for his boss. Suffice to say no one uses dirty tricks more effectively or more often than Karl Rove. As such, many Americans who care about the Constitution, Democracy, the rule of law and plain decency, long ago concluded that Karl Rove sucks.
Rove loved the praise bestowed upon him from his friends and foes alike. But then everything came crashing down around him and now his “genius” moniker is in serious need of repair. In an astonishing turn of events, Republicans lost both the House and the Senate in 2006 despite Rove's repeated assurances to the contrary:
“I’m looking at all of these [races] and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to your math and I’m entitled to the math” - Karl Rove (10/24/06)
Meanwhile, George W. Bush's approval ratings have been on a steady decline and now rest at 30%, 1% above their all time low.
It is hardly surprising that all of the GOP presidential candidates continue to distance themselves from Bush's body. Worse, Rove's permanent majority has been replaced by a public that favors the Democratic Party over the GOP by a whopping 50% to 35% margin. And independents favored Democrats in 2006 by an even larger 57% to 39% margin. It seems that the politics of hate, racism, division, war, war-mongering, propaganda, cheating, lying and stealing can only take a party so far.
But Rove will not go down without a fight. And thankfully propaganda rags like the ridiculous Newsweek magazine have given Rove a platform to win back his genius (In Newsweek's defense, it is not Time magazine). Despite the new gig, Rove proved to be every bit the partisan with his first column: “How to Beat Hillary (Next) November”:
“And so the question to John McCain from a woman at a town hall in South Carolina last Monday was tasteless, but key: ”How do we beat the [rhymes with witch]?“ Right now, Republicans are focusing much of their fire on Senator Clinton. Criticizing her unites the party, stirs up the unsettled feelings many swing voters have toward her and allows each candidate to say why he is best able to beat her.
For now, that's enough. But when a GOP nominee emerges, he needs to remember no Republican is as well known as Hillary. The Republican has room to grow in the polls as voters get a better sense of who he is and what animates him. Here's what he needs to do.”
The truth is that Karl Rove and the entire Republican Party are salivating at the opportunity to face off against Hillary Clinton and her “high negatives”. And why not, in a Zogby Poll released last week, Hillary now loses in the general election to all five GOP frontrunners while Barack Obama handily defeats the same five:
With this backdrop it seems clear as day that one should take Rove's latest piece in the Financial Times, “Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race”, with many grains of salt:
“Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere.”
And Rove's stellar advice:
First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.
Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.
Please! Could Rove give any worse advice than to turn the nice-guy, above the fray, uniter that is Obama into, well, Karl Rove? All can plainly see that Rove is rightfully scared of Obama whom he admits has “the buzz” and could very well win the nomination and upset Rove's plans to keep the White House in GOP hands. And as Frank Rich so ably points out, facing off against Obama would be a far more difficult task than defeating Hillary:
But much like the Clinton campaign itself, the Republicans have fallen into a trap by continuing to cling to the Hillary-is-inevitable trope. They have not allowed themselves to think the unthinkable — that they might need a Plan B to go up against a candidate who is not she. It’s far from clear that they would remotely know how to construct a Plan B to counter Mr. Obama. The repeated attempts to fan “rumors” that he is a madrassa-indoctrinated Muslim — whether on Fox News or in The Washington Post, where they resurfaced scurrilously on the front page on Thursday — are too demonstrably false to survive endless reruns even in the Swift-boating era.
Part of the Republicans’ difficulty in countering Mr. Obama, should they have to, is their own cynical racial politics. For the most part, race has been the dog that hasn’t barked in this campaign despite the (largely) white press’s endless fretting about whether the Illinois senator is too white for black voters and too black for white voters. Most Americans aren’t racist, most Republicans included. (Those who are won’t vote for the Democratic presidential candidate even if it’s not Mr. Obama.) But the G.O.P., by its own doing, is nonetheless saddled with a history that most recently includes “macaca” and Katrina, Mr. Bush’s appearance at Bob Jones University in 2000 and the nonexistent black population of its Congressional delegation.
As the Republican leadership knows, this record is an albatross, driving away not just black voters but crucial white swing voters, too. Ken Mehlman, the former G.O.P. chairman, and Mr. Rove, as recently as in that Newsweek column, have implored their party to reach out to minorities. So have Newt Gingrich and Jack Kemp. But not even conservative leaders of this stature could persuade their party’s top 2008 presidential contenders to show up for a September debate moderated by Tavis Smiley for PBS at the historically black Morgan State University.
So the polls emphatically prove that Hillary would be far easier prey for Republicans in the general election than Obama. And if statistics aren't your thing, commonsense clearly dictates the same. And finally, just about every political pundit from Karl Rove to Frank Rich have written as much. So what does Wolf Blitzer of the Clinton News Network wonder about Karl Rove's latest advice column?:
OMG! He is actually taking Rove's words at face value! LOL! Could Wolf really believe that Rove has forsaken his legacy as the greatest partisan political operative of the last 20 year in order to go legit and is now an uninterested, outsider, merely commenting on the political landscape? ROTFL! Yeah, that's the ticket, Rove couldn't possibly have ulterior motives.
The way I see it, there are two possible explanations for Wolf's comments: 1) he is an imbecile, or 2) he wants Hillary to get the nomination. Either way, he should be laughed out of his job. Of course, this is nothing new from Wolf or the Clinton News Network which showed its true colors at the last democratic debate in Nevada:
To be fair to Wolf and CNN, avid Clintonites like George Stephanopoulos, who formerly helped Bill Clinton get elected President and served as his communications director before moving on to become Chief Washington Correspondent for ABC News and host of his own Sunday morning show, also spew the same nonsense:
All of which makes Barack Obama's campaign for the presidency all the more remarkable. He continues to rise in the polls and threatens to win Hillary's “inevitable” nomination despite having to fight against Karl Rove, the entire Republican Party, the Clinton machine, CNN, Wolf, ABC, George and most of the mainstream media.
If the Illinois Senator can overcome those long odds he certainly has what it takes to lead the country.
Who needs Joseph McCarthy when you have Bill O'Reilly? O'Reilly's latest and greatest victim is Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban who, according to O'Reilly, should be imprisoned.
The original attack came Monday night, undoubtedly because Mark Cuban called the demagogue a “moron” in response to a Brad Friedman question at BlogWorld last week.
A mashup (5:08) of O'Reilly's attacks on Cuban on Tuesday.
Keith Olbermann puts the O'Reilly smears in context.
KO interviews conservative constitutional lawyer, Bruce Fein, about the legal b.s. being spewed by Bill-O.
UPDATE: O'REILLY ATTACKS CUBAN FOR THIRD STRAIGHT DAY
O'Reilly brings Dennis Miller into the ring to further his attacks on Mark Cuban.
MSNBC's Dan Abrams smacks O'Reilly good in just a half a minute (0:41).